[FreeReign]

Nothing divulged was classified, so it's unlikely there is any Congressional rule governing it.

It was an intteligence briefing given by the head of the CIA. You don't think that was classified?

As for the rebuttal; sorry, but I place a great deal more faith in a NAMED SOURCE -- even if a 'Rat, when the GOP has had two months to call him a liar and hasn't done so -- than I do an unnamed source, who can say anything without fear of contradiction or reprisal.

Look at the 'Rat congressman's quote. He never really said that he was specifically speaking for Petraeus. The congressmen used the word "we". This is what ABC said that the congressman said...

"a chronological order exactly what we felt happened, how it happened, and where we’re going in the future.”... ...“In the Benghazi area, in the beginning we feel that it was spontaneous – the protest- because it went on for two or three hours, which is very relevant because if it was something that was planned, then they could have come and attacked right away,”...“At this point it looks as if there was a spontaneous situation that occurred and that as a result of that, the extreme groups that were probably connected to al Qaeda took advantage of that situation and then the attack started.”

It's twisted nonsense.

[FredZarguna]

It's immaterial if there was classified info given in the Intel briefing. The Congressman did not reveal anything of a classified nature.

Your second point has the context fixing portion garbled. I won't accuse you of doing that deliberately. But I will say that what you've quoted in the context setting IS NOT what he said. Specifically, this is the context: Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, the top Democrat on the House Intel committee, said Petraeus laid out “a chronological order exactly what we felt happened, how it happened, and where we’re going in the future.”

He directly attributes what comes next to Petraeus. The GOP could have just as clearly said, "No P4 did not say that." The GOP has not done that. Furthermore, Petraeus himself had numerous opportunities to deny these remarks, as well as to deny WH claims that the "spontaneous demonstration" legend originated with the CIA. He did not do so. He did not contradict the WH on any point of significance until the Friday before the election, at which point he claimed that stories that the CIA denied assistance to the Ambassador and his team were false. That is 100% of his push-back to date.

Sorry, but as much as I didn't want to believe this originally, all the evidence (and silent agreement) we have points to one conclusion: David Petraeus was complicit in the cover-up of the murders of the American Ambassador and three other Americans on 9/11/2012.

[Paladin2]

"It's twisted nonsense. "

Correct. An appropriate phrase.